Optimization of the Human–Robot Collaborative Disassembly Process Using a Genetic Algorithm: Application to the Reconditioning of Electric Vehicle Batteries
Bibliographic record
Abstract
To achieve a complete circular economy for used electric vehicle batteries, it is essential to implement a disassembly step. Given the significant diversity of battery geometries and designs, a high degree of flexibility is required for automated disassembly processes. The incorporation of human–robot interaction provides a valuable degree of flexibility in the process workflow. However, human behavior is characterized by unpredictable timing and variable task durations, which add considerable complexity to process planning. Therefore, it is crucial to develop a robust strategy for coordinating human and robotic tasks to manage the scheduling of production activities efficiently. This study proposes a global optimization approach to the scheduling of production activities, which employs a genetic algorithm with the objective of minimizing the total production time while simultaneously reducing the idle time of both the human operator and robot. The proposed approach is concerned with optimizing the sequencing of disassembly tasks, considering both temporal and exclusion constraints, to guarantee that tasks deemed hazardous are not executed in the presence of a human. This approach is based on a two-level adaptation framework developed in RoboDK (Robot Development Kit, v5.4.3.22231, 2022, RoboDK Inc., Montréal, QC Canada). At the first level, offline optimization is performed using a genetic algorithm to determine the optimal task sequencing strategy. This stage anticipates human behavior by proposing disassembly sequences aligned with expected human availability. At the second level, an online reactive adjustment refines the plan in real time, adapting it to actual human interventions and compensating for deviations from initial forecasts. The effectiveness of this global optimization strategy is evaluated against a non-global approach, in which the problem is partitioned into independent subproblems solved separately and then integrated. The results demonstrate the efficacy of the proposed approach in comparison with a non-global approach, particularly in scenarios where humans arrive earlier than anticipated.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".